blend-ai

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool (implying mutation/write operation) and describes the return format, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether creation is reversible, error conditions, or how the object integrates into the scene hierarchy—significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter and return sections. It's appropriately sized—every sentence adds value. Minor deduction because the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headings are slightly verbose for pure conciseness, but overall it's efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters, and an output schema, the description does well: it explains the creation action, documents all parameters thoroughly, and notes the return format. The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return values. It could improve by mentioning behavioral aspects like error handling or scene context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does this excellently by documenting all 5 parameters with clear semantics: 'type' with its enum values, 'name' with auto-generation behavior, 'location' with default origin, 'rotation' units (radians), and 'scale' default values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'primitive object in the scene', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_armature', 'create_camera', or 'create_curve' by specifying it's for primitive geometric shapes, not other scene elements.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_curve' or 'create_text' for non-primitive objects. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.